There is a case making headlines down in Florida, where a woman has been in a vegetative state since suffering a heart attack in 1990, and the Courts gave permission for her next of kin, her husband, to consent for the removal of her feeding tube. The courts agreed with the doctors that this woman has no chance of recovery, that there was massive loss of oxygen to the brain when she had her heart attack, and that CAT scans show the brain has greatly reduced in size. Her feeding tube was taken out and her body was to be allowed to die peacefully. But enter the conservative Florida legislature, which-- acting on behalf of this woman's parents-- tailored a bill specifically for her case that would take away the husband's right to act as her guardian. Florida governor Jeb Bush signed this bill, and the woman's feeding tube was reinserted. This article was in today's New York Times: In Feeding-Tube Case, Many Neurologists Back Courts By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. Published: October 26, 2003 The New York Times ARTICLE TOOLS E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format Most E-Mailed Articles Reprints & Permissions TIMES NEWS TRACKER Topics Alerts Florida Death and Dying Brain t the center of the court battle over the immobile body of Terri Schiavo, the 39-year-old Florida woman kept alive by a feeding tube, is a videotape made by her parents. It lasts only minutes but has been played so many times on television and the Internet that it all but defines her. On the tape, Mrs. Schiavo, propped up in bed, is greeted and kissed by her mother. She is not in the deep, unresponsive sleep of a coma. Her eyes are open, and she blinks rapidly but fairly normally. She seems to follow her mother's movements, but her mother's face is too close for that to be clear. Her jaw is slack and her mouth hangs open, but at moments its corners appear to turn up in a faint smile. To many supporters of Mrs. Schiavo's parents, who say she should be kept alive on a feeding tube, the tape demonstrates that she can still think and react. But many leading neurologists say that it means no such thing, that the appearances of brain-damaged patients can be very misleading. Florida courts have ruled, after hearing from several experts who examined her, that Mrs. Schiavo has been in a "persistent vegetative state" an official diagnosis of the American Academy of Neurology since her brain was deprived of oxygen when she suffered a heart attack 13 years ago. Her feeding tube was removed on Oct. 15, but it was reinserted six days later after the Florida Legislature gave Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to override the courts. Patients in vegetative states may have open eyes, periods of waking and sleeping and some reflexes, like gagging, jerking a limb away from pain or reacting to light or noise. They may make noises or faces and even say words. But they do not, according to academy criteria, show self-awareness, comprehend language or expressions, or interact with others. A vegetative state "is the ironic combination of wakefulness without awareness," said Dr. James L. Bernat, a Dartmouth Medical School neurologist and past chairman of the academy's ethics committee. Mrs. Schiavo's parents and the conservative Christian groups working to keep her on the feeding tube insist that she is in a "minimally conscious state" another official diagnosis. They note that on the videotape, her eyes appear to follow a silver balloon waved before them. Her father, Bob Schindler, visited her on Thursday night and said later that she had made the sound "unh-unh," as if to say no, when he kissed her, and "unh-unh" again when he asked her if she wanted him to kiss her. He described that as a sign that she could hear and answer questions. In 2001, Dr. Richard Neubauer, director of the Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center in Florida, said in an affidavit that said he found Mrs. Schiavo "not in a vegetative state" and "at least semi-responsive to her environment." He was seeking to treat her by putting her in an oxygen-rich pressure chamber. A famous case of "minimally conscious," said Dr. Michael P. McQuillen, a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester, was that of a woman who appeared vegetative but, on overhearing her sister on the phone making funeral arrangements for a favorite uncle, began to cry. Mrs. Schiavo is fed by tube and incapable of making decisions for herself. She cannot swallow, though her parents argue that with help she might be able to relearn swallowing so she could be spoon-fed. Early in Mrs. Schiavo's illness, her husband, Michael, sent her to California to have a nerve stimulator implanted, one neurologist said, but he later came to believe she would never recover. Vegetative states become persistent, according to the neurology academy's criteria, after about three months, after which it is highly unlikely that they will end. Patients like Mrs. Schiavo whose brains have been starved of oxygen do worse than patients who suffer head trauma, neurologists say. "Thirteen years is plenty long enough to tell," said Dr. Bernat, who said he had not examined Mrs. Schiavo or seen any videotapes. "Assuming she is in a vegetative state, I can say with medical certainty that there is no realistic hope that she'll recover." Dr. Bernat was part of a large medical panel that in 1994 assessed thousands of patients' records and found that up to 35,000 Americans were in persistent vegetative states. Mrs. Schiavo's parents and a Web site, terrisfight.org, have cited "miracle recoveries" by people who supposedly woke up, speaking and moving, after years in comas. Dr. Bernat said his 1994 panel looked into more than 70 "alleged late recoverers" and found that "there wasn't a single one that was verified, so I'm very skeptical." Dr. Ron Cranford, a Minneapolis neurologist who was Dr. Bernat's predecessor on the academy ethics committee, examined Mrs. Schiavo as part of the original trial and testified in favor of her husband's request to discontinue feeding. He was adamant that she would never get better, and he says he is furious about the popular videotape. "She's vegetative, she's flat-out vegetative, there's never been a shred of doubt that she's vegetative, and nothing's going to change that," Dr. Cranford said in a telephone interview. "This has been a massive propaganda campaign, which has been very successful because it deludes the public into thinking she's really there." Her eyes do not steadily track objects, he said, and when she appears to look at her mother or a camera for a moment, it is merely rapid eye movement. More important, he said, "the CAT scans indicate a massive shrinkage of her brain, with its higher centers completely destroyed, which indicates irreversibility." The Schiavo case is the kind of family fight that doctors treating brain-damaged patients say they dread. "In a case like this, you're between a rock and a hard place," said Dr. McQuillen of the University of Rochester. He added that keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive artificially could be a burden on her. For many terminally ill patients, he pointed out, "food is an abslute burden it increases secretions and makes them uncomfortable." The woman's parents have put up a website to make their case that she should be kept alive, that she is responsive to them: http://www.terrisfight.org/ What do you think?107 responses total.
This case really upsets me. I don't think the Florida legislature or Governor Bush had any business interceding in this matter. This woman is brain dead, she is vegetative, and her brain is now greatly reduced in size. What she was, her memories, her personality, is gone. Her husband is her next of kin, and if the doctors, many doctors, have told him there is no hope of recovery, and that force feeding her body ad infinitum won't change things, I think he has/had every right to ask for her tube to be removed. The parents seem to be particularly spiteful of the husband, because he got another girlfriend a few years ago and had a child with her. I don't think this is relevant. This woman has been in a vegetative state since 1990. After years went by, it becomes obvious that there is no hope. He had the right to go on with his life. If I was this woman, I would not want my body kept alive when there is no hope of my recovery. I would want my loved ones to get on with their lives. the parents see their little girl, and she's alive and breathing. But what they see is on the outside. On the inside she's dead. She died a long time ago. Their daughter died when her brain died. Her body is what is still alive. And these conservative legislators, who drafted this emergency legislation, and Bush who signed it, seem to be reacting out of their religious beliefs, that only God should take a life and that the husband is an adulterer. I think the parents need to let their daughter go, and they need to respect that when she when she had her heart attack, and ended up in that hospital bed thirteen years ago in a coma, she was happily married, and her HUSBAND, not them, is the next of kin. And if he said, "my wife wouldn't want her body kept alive", they ought to respect that and not say he's lying.
This is only further proof that we live in an age in which superstition dominates science as a foundation for policy and governance, effectively relegating science to merely the means to develop new products to mass market at large multiples of the manufacture and delivery costs.
re: "her body was to be allowed to die peacefully." Have YOU ever watched a person you love starve to death, Mr. richard????
Well, that's pretty cynical. I think it's a pretty sad sitution, and I sympathize with all the people involved - it must be a dreadful choice to have to make. And the idea that the only way for her to die is to starve to death must make it that much harder. This is the downside of all the progress in medicine over the last century. I'm with the husband.
#2..klg, read the new york times article I copied in #0...the doctors say that feeding her body is MORE painful, that it forces her organs to work when there is no cognitive brain function to supervise the work. she is suffering more by their feeding and keeping her body alive, then if they took out the tube and just let her die. Letting her die IS in point of fact the more humane course of action. Would you want to be kept alive in a state like that?
Quotes from 10/20 Weekly Standard "Michael (Schiavo) brought a medical malpractice case in which he promised the jury he would provide Terri with rehabilitaion and care for her for the rest of his life." "Once the (damages) money was in the bank, Michael refused to provide Terri with any rehab." "Rather than the funds going to pay for medical therapists to help her, as the jury intended, much if it instead paid lawyers that Michael retained to obtain the court order to end her care." "(Michael) is engaged to be married and has had a baby with his fiancee, with another one on the way." "Judge Greer ordered Terri dehydrated base on dubious testimony from Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife that Terri told them she did not want to be hooked up to tubes - something he never told the malpractice jury . . ." "(R)ehabilitative therapy that could help her relearn to eat by mouth. . . (S)everal doctors and therapists have testified . . . she is a good candidate for tube weaning." Might anyone else perhaps get the impression that something stinks here?
this woman has been comatose for THIRTEEN years. She is not likely to ever relearn anything. The husband did get a settlement from the hospital to pay for her care, but after that the doctors told him there was no point. So he's called a money grubber because he listened to the doctors? And in as much as this woman really died thirteen years ago, once years and years had passed and doctor after doctor said there is no hope, why shouldn't he have moved on and found other companionship? I would hope she'd have loved her husband enough that she'd want him to. This woman is dead. Her body is alive. Her brain is shriveled up, her memories are gone. What she was is gone. There comes a time when you have to let go. This is not an isolated case. One article says there are 35,000 people nationwide who have been in vegetative states for numbers of years. I don't mean this to sound cold, but there does come a time when the practical purpose of keeping vegetative bodies alive is diminished. It is a question of whether the brain can recover, of whether the person that he/she was can ever come back. In this case, this woman suffered a massive loss of oxygen to the brain when she had heart attack. The doctors have known since he had her attack that she wouldn't recover. At some point, you must wonder whether keeping such people's bodies alive when they have no chance of recovery is really serving the patient's interests or is it serving the interests of family members who simply want to keep the body alive so they can pray for miracles. Medicine is based on science, you don't make medical judgements on the basis of hoping for a future miracle.
This response has been erased.
Is this a good time to mention the virtues of writing a living will?
Yes.
Re #3: It's extremely sad and unfortunate that our social and legal structure is currently such that the only way to let someone in this state die is to starve them.
I dont think there is any great solution to this case or any case where someone is in such a state. I think the husband was in the wrong, and that the parents are blinded by love. I hate that the Florida legislature got involved. But I also do not know that starving her to death is the right thing to do.
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/umlegal04.htm
This response has been erased.
re: "#7 (richard): . . . I would hope she'd have loved her husband enough that she'd want him to. . . . " Mr. richard, Did you hear the reports that shortly before the heart attack the woman told her parents she was considering a divorce??? klg
This response has been erased.
klg, that might be what the parents say but it doesn't matter. Whether or not the husband was faithful to her either while she was healthy and after she was in a coma is irrelevant. This matter should not be decided based on the idea of passing judgement on the husband. The husband is not the one who is brain dead and in a vegetative state. His wife is, and he is her next of kin, and if he says that she said she'd want to die if she was in that situation, and was not going to recover, the doctors and the courts should feel obligated to respect that. And they did respect that. It isn't the doctors stopping this, but all those medical experts in the Florida legislature who passed that bill and Jeb Bush who signed it.
re:#15 Nope, that doesnt matter at all. For one thing, her parents have a lot of motivation to lie about that. I am not saying that they *are* lying about that, just that it is possible. Even if they arent, she hadnt even started to get a divorce. I'll bet 90% of married people think about getting a divorce sometimes. It means nothing.
I don't know what the signed-into-law is precisely about, but if the debate is about who should decide what to do - since the patient currently cannot - then it's not always so cut & dried as "he's her husband, he gets to decide." The courts are there to determine who is capable of acting in the best interest of the patient. To those who might argue that it's in the patient's best interest to die, note that after that decision, there is no possibility of anything ever being decided again for the patient. As long as the patient remains alive, there is some possibility that other future decisions can be made. It is a tough situation, made tougher by conflicting views of people close to the patient, who ostensibly have the best interests of the patient in mind. There certainly is a large degree of benefit to the husband about having the patient die, and that should warrant scrutiny about his motives.
I agree that it is appropriate to bring the courts into this. However, the courts *have* decided.
This response has been erased.
The courts decided, but apparently the legislature thought they knew better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21857-2003Oct26.html
This response has been erased.
Recently heard that the husband also refuseto allow the Catholic church to administera final communion for fear she might be able to swallow showing she could be trained to eat without the tube.
Heard where?
There is no more Terri Schiavo. She's dead. There is only an animated corpse. She is effectively undead.
re: "#17 (richard): . . . It isn't the doctors stopping this, but all those medical experts in the Florida legislature who passed that bill and Jeb Bush who signed it." Believing this to be merely a medical issue for the determination is being much too simplistic. re: "#20 (slynne): I agree that it is appropriate to bring the courts into this. However, the courts *have* decided." Does not the United States' government and those of its component states consist of 3 equal branches? If so, then how-so is it appropriate for the one to be granted the power to trump the other two?? Does that not deny the premise upon which the governments of our nation was established???
I think mostly what bothers me about all this is I always feel a little uncomfortable about laws being passed that are targeted at one specific person. I don't think it makes for good legislation.
The husband was on Larry King tonight, and seemed sincere enough. It turns out that he is a health care official, a registered nurse. He also claims it is misinformation that he will in any way benefit from his wife's death. He claims that in fact he turned down a large settlement offer from people acting on the family's behalf (right to life groups) to turn guardianship over to the parents and walk away. He claims he wouldn't and won't do this because he wants to honor his wife's wishes and she told him she would not want to keep living in such a situation. The husband in fact claims that he got along with the parents until he got a $300,000 settlement for "loss of consortium" and the father demanded that they get a cut of that money. He claims the fa ther holds a grudge because he didn't cut him in on the settlment, due to having to pay lawyers and taxes and .etc He spoke emotionally of trying to protect his wife's dignity, and how upset he was that the parents released photos and film of her in this state, as he knows his wife would never have wanted anybody to see her in this condition. The husband's lawyer, who was also on the show, pointed out that if the law passed to keep her alive is upheld, it sets a really bad precedent. It will say that the governor and lawmakers can decide treatent for a sick patient, or overrule treatment agreed upon by the patient's family/guardians and the patients doctors. The husband claims that he has received death threats (which he surely has) and knows he could just sign over guardianship and walk away. But he is determined to honor his wife's wishes and is spending himself in debt paying lawyers (he claims there is very little money left from the court settlement and that he won't see another penny whether she dies or not)
Sob story. Frankly, I see no reason why what he and his lawyer say to Larry King should have any influence in the matter. This is a case for the Doctors and the courts. By the way, klg, your comment in #28 is reflective of your massive failure to understand the concept of "Balance of Power" between the three branches of government. The courts exist to function as a check on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive branches. The courts are the final arbiter of constitutionality. In these roles their precise function is to "trump the other two" branches, as you so elegantly put it. Maybe you should go back and take that high school civics class again.
yeah but thanks to governor bush and the legislature, this isn't a case for the doctors and the courts any longer. It is a case for the politicians. Politicians deem themselves worthy of overruling doctor's recommendations
Bad cases make bad laws..
There is NEVER a case that justifies a bad law being passed. I hope that this one is overturned by the florida supreme court as unconstitutional
This is a trend lately. First we have Congress deciding, with no input from the medical profession, that certain types of abortion are "never medically necessary." Now we have Jeb Bush deciding that the medical establishment is wrong about a woman's chances for recovery. <sarcasm>Why do we need doctors when our politicians are so clearly more knowledgable?</sarcasm>
The interesting (and ironic) thing here is that even if this law does what it is intended to do, it will only effectively prolong her life long enough for a federal court to overturn it, even more firmly establishing the precedent.
What I find interesting is that it took the husband 10 years to finally "honor his wife's wishes". Looks to me, he just wants to get out of the marriage at this point, and get on with his life. Nothing wrong with that. But it is a bit suspicious that he'd wait this long and suddenly start harping about what his wife wanted done in such a situation. I feel sorry for Terri, if she can comprehend what's going on. To know that people are making a decision about your life that you may not agree with and cannot communicate your feelings must be scary. Of course, I don't know whether she is in a vegetative state or not. Seems that the doctors can't seem to agree. It's sad that this whole episode had to be raked through the mud. Terri deserves some sort of dignity, either while she lives or in her death.
This response has been erased.
re 31: By the way, Mr. other, your comment reflects the results of massive brain-washing you have received in third grade to the effect that the judicial branch of government occupies a position that is superior to the other two "equal" branches. You (presumably) are a big boy now. It would behoove you to think independently and consider whether it makes any sense that such an arrangement was, indeed, the intentions of the founders. Mr. richard, Perhaps you might point out to us where the law provides it to be a doctor's prerogative to determine who shall live and who shall die. Thank you. klg
Ah. That is the heart of the question isnt it klg. Who gets to decide who gets what medical treatment and who doesnt. Is it ok for a doctor to decide to withhold treatment or can only a legislature decide?
Certainly not, miss. In our society neither has that authority. It is the decision of the individual.
It is certainly true that "the judicial branch of government occupies a position that is superior to the other two 'equal' branches" in regard to interpreting the law. However the other branches can initiate changes in the law, though with some difficulty, that will reverse the judicial branches' decisions. So, ultimately, there is a "balance of powers".
Yep.
Actually, the question put before the courts was whether the husband or the family had the right to make the decision. The courts ruled in favor of the husband. The legislature apparently decided that, ultimately, it was the state governor's job to decide.
klg, the courts ruled that the individual did in fact make the decision. The husband and two other friends of this woman testified under oath that she had made it clear to them back when she was healthy that were she ever in suh a situation, she would want to die. The court tried to honor her wishes. The parents admit she never talked to the about her views on this, but the parents view is that the husband and her two friends are lying. There is no way to be 100% sure what the choice of the individual is of course, but in this case there were three people close to her that swore that this was her view. I do not think keeping her body alive is the dignified thing to do. The husband's lawyer showed the CAT scans of her head on tv. There isn't much of her brain left. She's a body now. How would you like it if your body was still alive after you, everything you are, had died, and people paraded your body on tv and dressed you up and wanted to act like you are still there. The husband makes clear that he will get no insurance, no money whatsoever from her death, and he has gotten death threats and turned down large money offers to walk away. But he wants to honor his wife's wishes and see her die with dignity. Also starving to death for such an ill body is nowhere near the same as starving a healthy body. The organs are already greaty diminished. The bones are brittle. The body does't want to eat in that situation, it rejects food. That is why they have to FORCE feed. She'd die within a couple of days at most if the tube was taken out. It is the humane thing to do.
Richard, you do know that they had that tube out for over a week and she didnt die.
This response has been erased.
re25: HEARD WHERE? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Somewhat correct, Mr. rcurl. Is it not the case that in addition to legal interpretation that the courts also (1) create new laws (i.e., leglislate) and (2) order the enforcement of its decisions (i.e., execute). So, they regularly step above and beyond what one would presume to be their constitutionally defined mandate. Mr. richard, It appears that the duly elected legislators of the state of Florida do not give the same creedence to the testimony of the husband that you do. Additionally, as duly elected officials, they have somewhat more standing in this case than you. Finally, why do you equate tube feeding with "FORCE" feeding, which it is not?
This response has been erased.
re #25: > Recently heard that the husband also refuseto allow the Catholic > Church to administer a final communion for fear she might be able > to swallow showing she could be trained to eat without the tube. The reason this pegs my skepticism meter is that as a Catholic, every time I've taken Communion I've been required to make an affirmative response in order to receive it. (Typically the priest or eucharistic minister who's assisting will say "This is the Body of Christ," and the communicant responds "Amen.") I don't want to re-open the minor flame war we had over generalizing from one Catholic's experience, especially since the Church does make some accomodations for the gravely ill who wish to receive the Eucharist, but conscious volition is such an important part of the rite that I'd be very surprised to hear that the Catholic Church allows unconscious individuals to receive Holy Communion.
This response has been erased.
someone probably confused Last Rites (whatever its current nomeclature) with Communion.
klg, you are really putting on a very effective performance of someone best described as dense. The courts act as a check on the legislature and the executive, but without the legislative and the executive, the courts have no role to play. There is a remarkably well developed interdependency between the branches which gives each a measure of superiority over the others without giving it sufficient room to achieve independence. The courts do not legislate. They set precedent, by "publishing" rulings, which is basically a statement which says "We believe that the law applied in this case is not constitutional, and therefore we will not uphold its application." The courts do not have the power to sentence people for anything (except possibly contempt of court) which is not a violation of a law the legislature has made. Your comment about the courts legislating is pedantic crap recited by partisans with political agendas who are only taken at face value by people who are ignorant of the functions of the judicial system.
That's not to say that the courts don't sometimes make bad decisions or even decisions that go beyond their pervue - but that's true also of both the legislative and executive branches. Someones have undoubtedly said, many times, that the whole system can only be as good as the people elected or appointed to office or bench.
Hence the need for regime change PDQ.
Mr. other, How, please, do court decisions that, for example, impose taxes fit into your scheme that courts merely set precedent? klg
Suggest an example of a court case that simply invented a tax out of thin air, with no legislative justification, and maybe then we can talk usefully about it.
Bruce's info about the refusal is half correct--communion was denied, but not because they were afraid she'd swallow (doctors orders call for nothing in her mouth, for fear of choking). There's a decent rundown of the incident here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35156
what #58 said. Give me a concrete example, with source documentation, and we'll examine it.
Go forth and browse. . . . .
Idahoans for Tax Reform
... her explanations lacking.". Court imposed tax increases. We believe
Trout is responsible for court imposed tax increases. Out of the ...
www.idtaxreform.com/newsArticles/ chairmanMediaSmearJune2002.htm - 15k -
Cached - Similar pages
Long Island Power Authority
... accord ensures that each and every ratepayer will keep their 20
percent cut in electric rates, and staves off a billion dollar
court-imposed tax increase upon ...
www.lipower.org/newscenter/pr/2000/jan13_1_00.htm - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
[PDF] NEW YORK STATE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY
--------------------- ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... And most importantly, the LIPA Plan provides for a $1.2 billion
court-imposed tax increase for each and every homeowner and business
owner to be prevented. ...
www.lipower.org/pdfs/march10_1.pdf - Similar pages
The Claremont Crisis - Brown
... ruling in Claremont II came down in December 1997, there was a
moment of opportunity to simply amend our constitution and avoid the
court-imposed tax policy. ...
www.nationalreferendum.org/mbrown.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages
T. Rex's Guide to Politics - Steve Forbes
... (**) Would end inheritance taxes. (**) Wants to block court-imposed
tax increases.
(**) Vowed to abolish the tax on long distance phone service. ...
quinnell.us/politics/2000/forbes.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
T. Rex's Scandal Points List - Continued
... (**) Said the federal income tax is an example of infringement
on American liberty. (**) Wants to block court-imposed tax increases.
...
quinnell.us/politics/issues2.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Historic Desegregation Case Proves a Failure -- March 1998 ...
... St. Louis, who are just 9% of the state total. Clark's historic
court-imposed tax was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1990. The ...
www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/mar98/historic.html - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
FOXNews.com - Views - Tongue Tied - Silencing Campers, ...
... that have had $2 billion of our tax dollars poured into them to
"remedy" desegregation (with some of those dollars coming from a
court-imposed tax on the State ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50306,00.html - 45k - Cached - Similar
pages
Hannibal Courier-Post Community Story Court urged to give farmers ...
... today ... is an extra-judicial, court-imposed tax increase,'' Don
Downing, a special assistant attorney general, told the court. ...
www.hannibal.net/stories/081999/Courttax.html - 6k - Supplemental Result
- Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Steve Forbes 2000
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... Washington,DC o A constitutional amendment in New Hampshire to
protect local control of the schools and block court-imposed tax
increases; o California's ...
www.geocities.com/stevef2000.geo/f2kedu.pdf - Supplemental Result -
Similar pages
Result Page:
1 2 Next
None of those citations are to any examples of a court that "simply invented a tax out of thin air, with no legislative justification". All of them concern conflicts brought to the court to be settled, the outcome of which could affect taxes. The *court* did not create any of the cases. The phrase "court-imposed tax" was, in every case, used only by an attorney or commentator who was opposed to the settlement that might increase taxes. No taxes would, however, have been *imposed by the court*. The court would only have decided, in each case, for the plaintiff or the defendant, and if any taxes increased as a result it would have been solely because of the court finding the tax-raising action of a legislature or board to be within their legal authority. That is, in fact, the exact role for the court, and has no elements of the court "legislating". So - klg has come up empty (again).
A distinction without a difference, Mr. rcurl.
Not only a distinction, but an enormous difference from your claims. In all cases you cited it was only the anti-tax attorneys and commentators that used the "propaganda" term "court-imposed tax", hoping to influence both the public and the court. But you may still present us with documentation for a tax created by a court (and not by a judication of legal question that happened to involve a possible tax), if you can find one. So far, you have batted 000.
In the first case, the question before the court was: "If local governments enter multimillion dollar leaseback agreements does it constitute long-term taxpayer debt therefore requiring a taxpayer vote?" Apparently, Ada Couunty, Idaho, entered such an agreement. Also apparently, from the article klg cited, the court ruled that such an agreement did not require a taxpayer vote. The court did not create the "leaseback agreeement;" the county government (legislators, no? Or executives?) did. In the second case, a county apparently allowed the construction of a nuclear plant but then interfered with its opening. The owners of the plant sued the county and won: "The Pataki plan also sought to prevent huge property tax increases in Suffolk County due to the threat of repaying an outstanding $1.2 billion judgement on the never opened Shoreham nuclear power plant. Over time, the value of the judgement, which LILCO originally won in 19 96, has grown to more than $1.4 billion." The county owed $1.4 billion because of its apparently unlawful actions. The court merely noted that the county had acted unlawfully and required it to make restitution. How the county raised the money to meet its obligation was not included in the court's judgement. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of the klg's citations, since it's rather obvious he didn't, either.
This doesn't need to get bogged down in citations. What it comes down to is if you marry someone, and you love that person, can you love them so much that you want to protect how they die as much as how they lived? can you love someone enough that you want them to die with dignity? I hope if I ever get married that the person I marry loves me enough that they won't keep my body alive well past when my brain is dead. That they won't let people dress me up and parade me around like some sentient being when I am not that anymore. Dying is natural. It is part of the life process. Let it happen with dignity and respect.
And btw, the ACLU has intervened on behalf of the husband (michael shiavo) to challenge the law passed to keep his woman's body alive as unconstitutional. The claim is that this law signed by jeb bush applied ONLY to terri schiavo: "The guarantee of equal protection is that no person may be singled out to be governed by a wholly different legal regime than the rest of society," the court brief filed Wednesday said. the argument being that the legislature in florida should not pass a law tailored to apply to only one person. that doing so is unconstutional.
er...I meant his wife's, not his woman's, I wish grex allowed one to edit the body of text /.
from cnn.com article about the ACLU case: The lawyers said this case is "about whether the legislative and branches of the state of Florida can nullify the decisions of the courts of this state and can suspend the operation of the Constitution of the state of Florida with respect to a single citizen." well klg, can they?
(The "lawyers" said that? In that case, the argument is automatically suspect. Incidentally, Mr. richard, are not legislatures constantly making laws that apply to only a targeted subset of the population? If we recall correctly, the U.S. Congress itself passes "private" bills as this: Private Bills: Procedure in the House Richard S. Beth, Specialist in Legislative Process Government Division July 21, 1998 "A private bill is one providing benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private law when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted, but Congress seems more often to view private legislation as appropriate in cases for which no other remedy is available, and when its enactment would, in a broad sense, afford equity." So why the kerfuffle now, after over 200 years of private bills?? And why are people who are adamantly against the death penalty so anxious to kill this defenseless woman before all legal channels have been exhausted???)
All legal channels HAVE been exhausted. This woman has been in this condition for thirteen years, and has been considered clinically brain dead for three. This has been all the way through the court system, and every court, EVERY one, again and again and again, sided with the husband. It was only when all legal avenues were used and all courts and judges came to the same decision, that the legislature got involved. Constitutionally you CANNOT put the needs of one citizen above the needs of any other citizen, i.e. everyone is entitled to EQUAL protection under the law. This law the florida legislature passed is written such that it only applies to Terri Schiavo. It gives her rights that do not apply to anyone else. That is unconstitutional. I'd lay odds that the Florida Supreme Court overturns it pretty quickly. And this is not about "killing this woman", this is about no longer force feeding her body. If the tube is removed, and the body ends up starting to swallow, then the body will be saying it wants food. Then you feed it. If the body does not swallow, the body will be saying-- as it has been saying-- that it dose not want food. If the body does not want food, in the condition it is in, then let it die naturally. As it wants to. As nature intends for it to. KLG, I do not understand your conception of morality, if morality in your mind means NOT allowing nature, or God, or whatever, to take its natural course. It is sick to keep a body alive for no other reason than to keep it alive. This is a body that doctors have convinced courts at every level, repeatedly, for years-- has no hope of ever recovering. You wouldn't treat a dog or a horse that way. But I guess you think human beings have less dignity right klg?
This response has been erased.
While I think that what the Florida legislature, and the Florida governor did were unjustified (and will probably be reversed in court), I would not make that claim on the basis of an "equal protection" argument. However I think jp2 is pretty far off base: there are many Constitutional protections that apply to all citizens, giving "equal protection under the law". Also, the death penalty in Michigan was abolished a long time ago, so no crusade is required (although one may be necessary to retain that humanitarian provision).
jp2, equal protection IS guaranteed in the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Go read it. Fourteenth amendment, section 1, last sentence: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS" If you create a law that allows more protections to some citizens-- or one citizen-- than any other citizen, you are violating the 14th amendment, which GUARANTEES every citizen equal protection.
rcurl, the ACLU is asking it be overturned on those 14th amendment grounds? On what grounds would you ask it to be overturned if not those? Since you think the law should be reversed, as I do, you must think it unconstitutional right?
This response has been erased.
you said that there "is no such thing as equal protection under the law", and I cited you the exact words in the Constitution. How do you claim it does not contradict you? It SAYS 'Equal Protection' Are saying that guaranteeing "equal protection under the law" does not mean the same thing as being guaranteed "equal protection of its laws"? In any case, it is not for you or I to say as a fact whether the law is unconstitutional. That is for the judges to decide. The ACLU is challenging the law on 14th amendment grounds though, so obviously their lawyers are arguing that it is.
This response has been erased.
The Ninth Amendment takes care of that - equal protection applies to all under federal law by virtue of the extension of those rights through the Ninth Amendment (as has been upheld by the Supreme Court). Re #75: good question. I'm not a lawyer and indeed the ACLU may see an "equal protection" issue in this. What I see was a legislature and a governor contravening the unanimous conclusions of a series of legal decisions in state courts without arguing specifically against the substance of those decisions. That is, they acted in an arbitrary fashion. There must be a constitutional basis for reversing those actions. Perhaps "equal protection" is it but it seems to me there must be something more fundamental in sustaining legal rights granted by the courts.
This response has been erased.
jp2, the Courts don't have to rule on equal protection being a fundamental right because it is in the Constitution. "..NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS" As it is explicitly stated as something which CANNOT be denied, that makes the right to it fundamental. and re #70, klg: ""A private bill is one providing benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private law when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted, but Congress seems more often to view private legislation as appropriate in cases for which no other remedy is available, and when its enactment would, in a broad sense, afford equity" So you are saying the wishes of individuals, and the powers of the courts to protect the wishes of these individuals, can be overridden by the state legislature at any time they please? So at any time a citizen loses in court, and has the money to pay off the legislature, he can get the legislature to write a law that circumvents the court? Surely you must see that allowing such weakens the Judicial system. Klg, what you suggest is a recipe for a coup d'etat. If a radical fringe party like the Nazis got temporary majority control of a state legislature, you are saying they could circumvent the constitution by passing tens of thousands of "private laws", making private laws for thousands upon thousands of "private individuals" Surely you see this can't work. If a legislature enacts a "private law" to confer extra rights upon an individual citizen that no other individual has, surely this is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment (equal protection for all-- if you are protecting one citizen more than others, you are not providing equal protection under the law) And even in the citation you gave, in this case this "private law" does NOT provide equity for everyone on a broad basis. All this law does is allow one woman to be exempt from laws and legal standards that all of the rest of us are still subject to. This is a case that was heard again and again in the courts. The woman's husband and two of her friends swore in court that this woman stated that were she ever in such a situation as this, she would want to die. The doctors, the lawyers and the judges have repeatedly accepted that this is her wish. So the state legislature and the governor have intervened to superimpose the will of the state OVER the will of the individual. If jp2 and klg support that, they must really WANT the state controlling people's lives and making people's decisions for them. Jp2 and klg must be Communists.
I put things in writing. Jim will make my decisions on that basis.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Not at all. Corporations are not people, but financial constructs. They are as much persons as robots controlled by persons are, which is not at all.
This response has been erased.
Again - you're wrong. The type of "personhood" conveyed by creation of a corporation is up to the people writing the laws. If the laws don't allow corporations to vote, they don't vote. There may be arguments for and against corporations voting, but those are all irrelevant to the fact that corporations are human constructs that have certain rights and limitations, and one of the latter is they don't vote.
This response has been erased.
The Supreme Court says you are wrong. That quote is from a court reporter's comments in an 1886 case. Here are some comments on the case and situation from http://www.corpwatch.org/bulletins/PBD.jsp?articleid=7110 "The notion of "corporate personhood" was adopted by the Supreme Court under very dubious circumstances, when a court reporter used the term in a head note he created for an 1886 Court decision *that actually declined to address the issue*. (The case was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394.) [Emphasis added.] "In a later 1889 case, Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company (129 U.S. 26), Justice Field cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons, and that inaccurate notion of Santa Clara's holding remains today. Nonetheless, other Supreme Court decisions support the opposite view. The Court stated in a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that because corporations have "state-conferred . . . structures," and "[s]tate law grants [them] special advantages," their political speech can be regulated by the state. In other words, they do not have the constitutional right to free speech."
Boys, I'm going to need citations on all of your arguments.
This response has been erased.
I didn't confuse anything. I quoted from a website. The current argument is over a Nike suit claiming first amendment protection. This is still to be resolved, and may settle the question (a little).
I sometimes do legal translations which include the phrase 'legal person' - meaning a company not an individual.
That's what a "corporation" is *in a sense*, the sense being as far as the "corporate person" is given legal rights by legilations. We know they are not equal to those of human persons. One well established process in law is "piercing the coporate veil", which means being able to bypass the "corporate" protection given to owners and managers of corporations. This is why D&O insurance - "directors and officers" - is offered and often demanded by people before they will join a corporate board. It is why there is a provision in law for homeowners' insurance "embrella" coverage in Michigan for it to apply to volunteer members of non-profit corporate boards for suits based in accusations of "dereliction of duty". The list of "non-person" attributes of corporations is very long. Read corporate law to find all the exceptions.
This response has been erased.
So you're saying D&O insurance is fradulent on its face, because it doesn't cover the very eventualities for which it exists in the first place?
This response has been erased.
Re #95: that's why I definitely decline to quote from you.
<sarcasm> I love jp2's solution to voting fraud: legalize and tax it. It would basically let everyone have as many votes as they have money for incorporation papers. Being able to nail the Chicago machine for tax evasion (the same thing that got Capone) would be a further benefit. And those poor black folks on the south side didn't really deserve to have any influence anyway, right? </sarcasm>
This response has been erased.
This has been done already. Slave owners used to get (I think) 2/3 or maybe 1/3 of a vote per slave.
Not true, Sindi. The Constitution's clause on the census said, "and three fifths of all other persons." This sentence was about the apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes. You'll find it in Article 1, Section 2. What it says about electors is: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature" (Art 1, Sec 2).
Mr. richard- We report and you decide (using whatever twisted logic you may choose). klg
This response has been erased.
How true, Mr. jp2.
That's pretty typical of most delusions.
Whore.
You have several choices: